How to Talk to Your Jewish Friends About Israel

[Siwy]

Originally posted by: dna
Wow, you really are dense.
Here is how it is supposed to be (bold where the change is):

X =8,940 ? 1,874 = 7066 sq km (Total cultivable land minus land owned by Jews)
Y = 8940 sq km (this is what I meant by using different totals)
F = 79% (X / Y)
Jewish ownership = 21%

You just proved yourself that your original formula and percentage is crap! And it took me 8 freaking posts to get it through your thick skull. Take a look at your original number and the numbers we are talking about now, they don?t match, you were wrong, you are the dense one and lacking the balls to admit it.

We've been dabating numbers for a while now, and you are yet to explain how land was stolen.

1950 Absentee Property Law ~ need I say more?

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Siwy
You just proved yourself that your original formula and percentage is crap! And it took me 8 freaking posts to get it through your thick skull. Take a look at your original number and the numbers we are talking about now, they don?t match, you were wrong, you are the dense one.

The numbers I have used were somewhat off, but the formula was correct, and the result wasn't as outrageous as you're trying to make it seem. You were the one who couldn't assign the right values to the variables in the formula, and end up with over 100%.

1950 Absentee Property Law ~ need I say more?

Indeed, you need to say plenty more -- you need to address the fact that many Palestinians left at the behest of the Arab Legue; if Mexico were to attack the USA, and told Mexicans in the USA to go to Canada in order to be safe, then those who would heed the call might as well be classified as traitors, as they were listening to a foreign power, and their citizenship stripped. Furthermore, one could easily consider their property abandoned.

The law you mention address the status of the property after it has been abandoned, and its necessity is understandable.

Israel did offer to allow a certain number of Palestinian to return, but that was not allowed by the neighboring countries -- it was unthinkable, as that would amount to recognizing Israel. You also need to keep in mind that Palestinians were urged not to leave, as proven by this British Police report.

Finally, if you still want to consider it theft, then you'll have to address the issue of the Jewish Refugees and their stolen property.

 

[kylebisme]

From there to there; and more recently so was stolen, and more recently so is all the land taken beyond that, desert and water included.

And a fairly recent picture of what the is left of Palistine today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/m.../maps/html/settlements_checkpoints.stm

 

[Siwy]

Originally posted by: dna
The numbers I have used were somewhat off, but the formula was correct, and the result wasn't as outrageous as you're trying to make it seem.

There is a major difference between 33% Jewish ownership and 7% Jewish ownership (cultivable land only). Remember you removed the desert and water to achieve 33%. And the 7% excludes those as well. You?re starting to get pathetic at this point.

You were the one who couldn't assign the right values to the variables in the formula, and end up with over 100%.

It?s like talking to a mental patient. Of course those numbers were not correct. I had to show you those incorrect numbers because you would not do the ?legwork? yourself.

You learned something new today ~ that Jewish land ownership at the inception of Israel was roughly 7%. Give yourself a medal.

 

[imported_dna]

Ah, if it isn't TheSnowman -- the one person who wouldn't address the issue of the Jewish Refugees, and the overwhelming evidence that the Arab League urged Palestinians to leave. I really wonder why?

One thing you are forgetting with the picture of the jewish settlements in 1947, and that is that the Yellow area is not all land owned by Arabs, but you're sure trying to suggest that. Also, if you flip between the image, you might notice something (but only if you try) -- the partition was clearly based on the land ownership at the time, and in the area that was assigned to the Israeli state Jews were the major land owners.

It's nice to see you end up with your usual "oppression" rhetoric.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Siwy
There is a major difference between 33% Jewish ownership and 7% Jewish ownership (cultivable land only). Remember you removed the desert and water to achieve 33%. And the 7% excludes those as well. You?re starting to get pathetic at this point.

Wow, you really are either a retard or trying to deceive people; it clearly states at the record you pointed to:

Jews, making up about a third of Palestine's population, privately and collectively owned 1,393,531 dunums in 1945 (Khalaf, 1991, pp. 26-27) and 1,850,000 dunums in 1947 (Avneri p. 224). This constituted about 20% of cultivable, and 7% of the total land of Palestine.

They owned 20% of the "useful" land, and 7% of the total. My numbers were crude and not accurate, but the formula correct, as I've shown you in a prior message, also getting 20.96% with what should be more accurate numbers.

You learned something new today ~ that Jewish land ownership at the inception of Israel was roughly 7%. Give yourself a medal.

That's 7% of the entire Mandate, which translates to a higher value in the context of pre-1967 borders, and significantly higher (and dominant) in the context of the area assigned by the Partition Plan. Nice try, though.

Heh, you must be splitting a brain with TheSnowman, since neither one of you will address the Jewish Refugees, nor the fact that Palestinians abandoned their property when they fled at the behest of the Arab League.

 

[Siwy]

Originally posted by: dna
They owned 20% of the "useful" land, and 7% of the total. My numbers were crude and not accurate, but the formula correct, as I've shown you in a prior message, also getting 20.96% with what should be more accurate numbers.

That?s right your numbers were crude and inaccurate.

That's 7% of the entire Mandate, which translates to a higher value in the context of pre-1967 borders, and significantly higher (and dominant) in the context of the area assigned by the Partition Plan. Nice try, though.

There is no disagreement between 7% of total cultivable land and 20% of pre-67? cultivable land at the inception of Israel ~ so I?m not sure what your argument is.

Heh, you must be splitting a brain with TheSnowman, since neither one of you will address the Jewish Refugees, nor the fact that Palestinians abandoned their property when they fled at the behest of the Arab League.

If it takes me 10 posts and 2 days to convince you that your straight forward calculation is incorrect, which you finally admited, do you think I want to waste my time arguing about more vague issues that were discussed here thousands of times?

 

[Aimster]

An Israeli trying to prove Israel is wonderful and right always

A person who always tries to prove Israel is evil and wrong always

Let's say both acheive their goal and convince the other one .... world peace

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Siwy
That?s right your numbers were crude and inaccurate.

At least I admit mistakes, you apprently still stick to them, so let's have a look at that.

There is no disagreement between 7% of total cultivable land and 20% of pre-67? cultivable land at the inception of Israel ~ so I?m not sure what your argument is.

I see that I really have to narrow it down for you: the meaning of pre-1967 is the borders that were in effect between 1949 and 1967, and that excludes the West Bank and Gaza, and the Golan Heights -- aka the Green Line. Look at the quote again (provided below), notice the bolded text, and see if you can finally understand your mistake:

Jews, making up about a third of Palestine's population, privately and collectively owned 1,393,531 dunums in 1945 (Khalaf, 1991, pp. 26-27) and 1,850,000 dunums in 1947 (Avneri p. 224). This constituted about 20% of cultivable, and 7% of the total land of Palestine.

If it takes me 10 posts and 2 days to convince you that your straight forward calculation is incorrect, which you finally admited, do you think I want to waste my time arguing about more vague issues that were discussed here thousands of times?

Yep, the Jewish Refugee issue is quite vague, and statments like the one below couldn't be more ambiguous:

Habib Issa, secretary-general of the Arab League, wrote in the New York Lebanese daily "al-Hoda" (June 8, 1951):
[Azzam Pasha, Arab League secretary,] assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade... Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property, and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states.

Sidestepping issues because they are supposedly vague -- what a marvelous excuse!

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Aimster
An Israeli trying to prove Israel is wonderful and right always

A person who always tries to prove Israel is evil and wrong always

Let's say both acheive their goal and convince the other one .... world peace

Not even close; I'm merely trying to debunk "common knowledge" and revisionist history as presented by an innumerate who is now disregarding pertinent facts under the pretext of "vagueness".

 

[kylebisme]

Fact is, Israel always was made of mostly stolen land.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Fact is, Israel always was made of mostly stolen land.

Ah, resorting to troll comments.

Care to actually back that bullshit up? Because technically ALL land is stolen, idiot. America is made up of completely stolen land. Want to point out that fact too?

Useless.

 

[kylebisme]

The numbers and maps posted previously, some of it by me, back up what I said. But what is your argument, you think Israel should contenue to steal whatever land she pleases?

 

[kobymu]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

?I can talk to my Jewish friends about anything -- except Israel. When that subject comes up, they just shut down.?
. . .
read on

A Jewish that doesn't want to talk ?!? Does not compute!

Jewish will debate you to death if you will give them a chance, trust me I know.
Discussing about everything and anything is like our national pastime.

Talking a lot is like our trade mark, that and a devilish sense of humor.

/edit
I just gotta, you left yourself wide open:

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Fact is, Israel always was made of mostly stolen land.

So? so is the USA. You want to judge Israel by a different criteria then the rest of the world?

/edit2
oops, didnt see Aisengard comment.

 

[Aisengard]

kobymu, he does. I guess he thinks so highly of the Jews and Israel he holds them to a higher moral standard than any other country in the world.

 

[kylebisme]

Quite the opposite, I don't want to see the rest of the world devolve back to a continuing land grab with any resistance sighted as justification of collective punishment and military occupation. Holding the rest of the world to the same criteria as Israel would quite simply be World War 3; do you all have such low moral standards as to want that?

 

[kobymu]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Quite the opposite, I don't want to see the rest of the world devolve back to a continuing land grab with any resistance sighted as justification of collective punishment and military occupation. Holding the rest of the world to the same criteria as Israel would quite simply be World War 3; do you all have such low moral standards as to want that?

*cough*Iraq*cough*.

 

[imported_dna]

Land grab? Bah!

Where were you when Saddam Hussein went into Kuwait? Did you even care? Did anybody in the Middle East care?

EDIT: TheSnowman, I'm still waiting for you to address the issues I mentioned in prior messages (on this page).

 

[IrateLeaf]

this thread is still going? On and on and on, etc etc etc

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: kobymu

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Quite the opposite, I don't want to see the rest of the world devolve back to a continuing land grab with any resistance sighted as justification of collective punishment and military occupation. Holding the rest of the world to the same criteria as Israel would quite simply be World War 3; do you all have such low moral standards as to want that?

*cough*Iraq*cough*.

I ask if you want WW3 and your answer is "Iraq"?

 

[Aisengard]

*woosh* Right over his head.

 

[imported_dna]

That's not the only thing -- he has yet to address my questions.

He must be working on a grand-spin, or maybe prepping to cite the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to demonstrate premeditated theft.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
*woosh* Right over his head.

So, what do you think Kobymu was suggesting by mentioning Iraq in response to my question?

 

[Aisengard]

So much for his grand spin.

He wasn't answering your useless question. Kobymu coughed Iraq because the resistance there 'justifies' our military occupation of it. "Obviously it's a mess, so we have to stay the course", Bush says. You made believe that Israel was the only country who has ever attacked another country. Plus, Israel didn't occupy Lebanon.

So, you are forgetting America in all of this. The USA is made up of completely stolen land, and the USA is being much more of a fuckup than the Israel/Lebanon affair ever could hope to be. Yet you keep implying that Israel is the grand offender in all of these categories.

God, you really don't have a clue.

 

[kobymu]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: kobymu

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Quite the opposite, I don't want to see the rest of the world devolve back to a continuing land grab with any resistance sighted as justification of collective punishment and military occupation. Holding the rest of the world to the same criteria as Israel would quite simply be World War 3; do you all have such low moral standards as to want that?

*cough*Iraq*cough*.

I ask if you want WW3 and your answer is "Iraq"?

You blaming Israel that it is starting WW3 because Israel:

• executed a small scale military operation (its not even worth the word campaign);
• that didn?t even last one month;
• in the southern half of Lebanon only;
• against a rouge 'military' i.e. a 'military' without a country;
• a 'military' that it's funding, training and arms supplies doesn?t even come from the country on which it's land, 99% of their activity is from, and so does its orders;
• a 'military' that its existing itself is only to instigate hostility as in side jabbing Israel whenever they can if they think they can get away with it without repercussion;
• a military operation in which at the end of it :
• - the same government is still in power;
• - the effect on the said country internal politic is limited;
• - the effect on the entire region geopolitics is somewhere between minute to non existence.

...while the USA (in Iraq):

• is having a vast military campaign;
• that is about to or already did achieve a full year in length;
• encompassing the entire country;
• against the said country formal army;
• the formal army that takes it's order from its formal ruler;
• an army that resides on it's own land;
• a military campaign in which at the end of it... wait it not over yet :
• - the government has changed;
• - the effect on said country internal politic cannot be any bigger;
• - the effect on the entire region geopolitics is significant; .

Proportion.

Yeah, Israel it to blame.

Blame us for global warming too while you're at it.

/edit

And that?s, ladies and gentleman, how you use bullet points

Same joke, different spin: I have bullet points and I'm not afraid of using them.

Version.3 : with so many bullets you cant see the point

#4: whats the difference between bullet points and numbered list? The heading! *staka dish* ahhhhh that joke was so bad it made my Word crash. *staka dish*

#5 what did the numbered list said to the bullet point? "Hey you, not you, him, no no him , aghhrrr!!!"

#6 what did the bullet point said to the numbered list? "Number 10, ditch the zero you're way out of line!"

#7
A. What do you get when you mix bullet points and numbered list? a mess!
B. What do you get when you mix bullet points and numbered list? a demotion!

#8: what that did the gray bullet point said to other bullet points? I'm having a bad day.

#9: why did the bullet point got offended by the emoticon? Because the emoticon gave him a face.